Soft Cap Implosion

[T Rick]

There is a growing industry concern getting more airtime every day about the AFL decision to cut the Soft Cap from $9.7m to $6.7m for the 2021 season. Senior coaches such as Scott and Longmire have spoken with great concern about the negative impact on clubs and the well-being of personnel. Assistant coaches like Vossy have also made some very concerning observations about rising stress levels re things not being able to be done where more is being asked of fewer people. Now Dangerfield has come out and linked the record high injury levels (177 players and 23% of total player lists out with injury this week).
This begs the question of how it has impacted the Lions. I assume we have had strategic staff cuts, coaches taking pay-cuts and various program cutbacks as well. I recall Fages last year saying that we would be "less impacted" than some clubs because we were already operating below the maximum soft cap anyway. A number of BF posters have been bemoaning our lack of media communication on things such as our VFL side - I assume our Media department took a substantive hit (loss of Josie Fielding comes to mind).
Does anyone have any insight into how the reduction of the Soft Cap has impacted our Club?

 

[dlanod]

At a high level we also shifted some of our assistant coaches from the senior team to the academy, putting them outside the cap.

 

[T Rick]

At a high level we also shifted some of our assistant coaches from the senior team to the academy, putting them outside the cap.

Good for the Academy but I guess this means less Assistant coaches to assist Fages and the current Assistants?

 

[AFLQLD]

My understanding was that the Lions have generally run very light compared to many bigger clubs. There was a photo a few years ago of Collingwood having 20 something coaches, medical and various other people in the box and on the sideline.

Who's that in the coaches' box?

Upwards of 25 people support AFL senior coaches on match days. Who are they, and what do they do?

www.afl.com.au

I don’t think Brisbane ever had the money to go down that path. So I assume that multiple jobs have been combined and assigned to someone rather than like at bigger clubs having a single role for each person. Or otherwise we just do without. Given the state of our facilities compared to some of the palaces others have, the club seems to have a more make-do attitude than most.

I think the big clubs have a tendency to throw money at problems first because up till recently they could. I suspect that the clubs have worked out also that the AFL will find it difficult to hold back spending if they all push the player welfare line. They want to spend and there are jobs for the boys in it.

I know from talking to some people who have worked at the Lions but not in the footy department that game day is simply all hands on deck - just about everyone in the whole organisation is involved. I suppose we just get by with what we can afford.

 

[jackess]

As long as it’s a level playing and still competitive wages to get medical and fitness people from other sports then I don’t see the issue.

We’ve had a great run with injuries while spending the least or close to. I’m sure if clubs spent their money wisely they’d be just fine.

 

[briztoon]

There is a growing industry concern getting more airtime every day about the AFL decision to cut the Soft Cap from $9.7m to $6.7m for the 2021 season. Senior coaches such as Scott and Longmire have spoken with great concern about the negative impact on clubs and the well-being of personnel. Assistant coaches like Vossy have also made some very concerning observations about rising stress levels re things not being able to be done where more is being asked of fewer people. Now Dangerfield has come out and linked the record high injury levels (177 players and 23% of total player lists out with injury this week).
This begs the question of how it has impacted the Lions. I assume we have had strategic staff cuts, coaches taking pay-cuts and various program cutbacks as well. I recall Fages last year saying that we would be "less impacted" than some clubs because we were already operating below the maximum soft cap anyway. A number of BF posters have been bemoaning our lack of media communication on things such as our VFL side - I assume our Media department took a substantive hit (loss of Josie Fielding comes to mind).
Does anyone have any insight into how the reduction of the Soft Cap has impacted our Club?

Pretty sure Noble talked about the Lions being the model when the AFL cut the soft cap, as we ran with the lowest soft cap spend of all clubs.

 

[Dalions]

Pretty sure Noble talked about the Lions being the model when the AFL cut the soft cap, as we ran with the lowest soft cap spend of all clubs.

And David Noble and North Melbourne now want the Soft Cap to remain where it is.

 

[POBT]

Not suggesting that I don't completely agree with the comments made by coaches and assistants recently but I think there's a more fundamental issue at play. I'd imagine that the intent of the AFL was not for clubs to "do more with less" but to actually prioritise the important aspects of providing "soft" support for a football team and make resourcing decisions accordingly.

If a club is choosing to have a specialist tactical football coach over a mental health resource or a rehab resource, then that's their call but I'd suggest that it is stupid, short sighted decision making that borders on negligence. If an assistant coach is spending many hours pouring over opposition analysis, on top of his work with his line group and that's causing burnout, then I'd suggest less opposition analysis needs to be done, rather than the club needing an extra coach.

The whole argument of the opponents of the reduced soft cap assumes that footy clubs need to continue to operate in the same way, which is not necessarily the case. When confronted with cost cuts, you can try and maintain the status quo by utilising latent capacity or sweating your assets more. Or you can do what most companies do in the same space and review your operating model and, to use an old saying, to "cut your cloth" to suit.

There are a lot of people who believe that the game is at its best when it is in the hands of the players and not the coaches. It is why I liked the reduction of runners from a few years ago because it stopped coaches exerting influence on games. If coaches focused more on developing the skills and knowledge of their own players and less on worrying about using front on vision to develop the next great defensive strategy, then I think the game would be better off.

 

[FLVanLandingham]

from an article citing just unnamed ceo's and the like from many clubs, it seemed there was a wide variety of preferences (smaller clubs wanting it to stay, larger wanting it to stay etc)

I agree with AFLQLD and POBT.

maybe its petty, but i romanticize the sport, and sure there is the element of making sure staff are adequately paid for their jobs and are not overworked... but throwing money at the problem should not be the go
probably a naive viewpoint.. but if we had to go it tough goddamnit, then so should they all

 

[M Malice]

At a high level we also shifted some of our assistant coaches from the senior team to the academy, putting them outside the cap.

Would those academy coaches be sneaking in some coaching of younger guys on the senior list eg. Sharp, H.Smith, B.Coleman, Michael.

 

[briztoon]

Would those academy coaches be sneaking in some coaching of younger guys on the senior list eg. Sharp, H.Smith, B.Coleman, Michael.

I would guess that the academy coaches do spend time coaching the senior list as well.

 

[trikster]

I would guess that the academy coaches do spend time coaching the senior list as well.

at the time it did look a clever way to remove staff from the soft cap without actually removing staff

 

[davemc_lions]

at the time it did look a clever way to remove staff from the soft cap without actually removing staff

Do not tell Eddie